Gaider on "Quality"

[Diogo Ribeiro]

He never said that that multiple paths through a game doens't make a game better. Al he said is that ti doens't always add value. That is true. I go by PST. PST feels exactly like the saem game to me no matter hwo I play it which is why even though I like the game; I only played it to completion once.

Actually they do add value. Replay value. Since you only played PS:T once, you're probably missing out on some interesting tidbits of info on the storyline regarding TNO's past; probably even in its outcome, depending on your stats.

Now i understand that many people don't replay RPGs - but for the same amount of people that don't replay them, there's almost the same amount of people who do. I've replayed PS:T about 15 times, and i always encountered something new. I've replayed Fallout many times, and also found the occasional odd end in a couple of instances each time i played.

Multiple paths, wheter in terms of game endings, story or even dialogue outcomes always add value. Just because some people can't be bothered to replay to see that value, that doesn't make it so there isn't. Now, its obvious that depending of how someone actually designs the game, multiple paths and path branching might turn up useless. But what seems to me is that Gaider is excusing himself and using the idea that since most of the times multiple paths don't add something (to him), then he shouldn't try to include them in games. That's faulty logic. Now wheter he knows how to insert them or not, thats another thing (not) - but he acts in a way that goes by the "since the majority fails at it, i won't do it so i won't fail as well".

I'd honestly prefer that he failed (but at least tried), instead of claiming certain things are useless (like the timeless "evil quests are useless because no one plays evil" shtick).

Also, TOB fails on the "multiple paths" business. 3 endings, which consist of

One to become a good God
One to become an eeebil God
One to reject his Bhallspawn essence and become a mortal

are badly portrayed. Why? Because there's no action->consequence. Actions (other than killing a bazillion things to get there) are non-important to the outcome of it. Multiple endings to something shouldn't be just about choosing an outcome from a set of dialogue choices that'll happen regardless of what you did - at the very least, multiple paths should have happened before. Do you feel fulfilled by killing every peasant and innocent you come across trough the Realms and then someone asks you if you want to be a "good God"? Its detached of actual value.

Exitium mentioned Deus EX's endings - those work better than TOB's endings. Why? Because you actually play, and the results of what you do lead you said endings. It wouldn't be the same reaching Area 51 and having, say, a hologram ask you: "Well, its the end of the game. Which slideshow do you want to see?", would it? Of course not - the advantage od DX over TOB in that department, is that you're warned of what outcomes might happen if you do soemthing (Illuminati, Dark Age and Helios endings), and your actions will actually define what will happen. Meanwhile, in TOB, you're warned of what will happen, but your actions towards that end are futile, as you'll fight to see an ending, not work towards that ending.

Though i guess he's right, though: making branching story paths doesn't always add value... in Bioware games.

 

[Visceris]

BWAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAA!

 

[Araanor]

Ah, Visceris, why don't you drag Gaider over here? :D

 

[Visceris]

Head to the Bioware fourms. He is commenting on this thread of yours.

Of course, I'm still laughing from my jaunt over to RPG Codex. Wow. If anyone thinks Visceral is a mite indignant or pushy in his views (and needs a good laugh), they should head to the forums over there. One of my posts in this thread is posted and dissected... funny, funny stuff.

I find this humourous as well, but then again most people accuse me in having a sick sense of humor.

 

[Jed]

Head to the Bioware fourms. He is commenting on this thread of yours.

Flattering that our site has so much cachet with Bio, but doesn't Dave have anything better to do, like adding some depth to his games?

Jed

 

[Spazmo]

Tell him for me that he's a dick.

 

[Visceris]

Spazmo: Now now, behave. Gaider is not a dick. He's a David. Cheney, now he is a Dick.

 

[Vault Dweller]

How about a link to that thread?

 

[Linedog]

BWAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAA!

Nice to see you here. Always liked your posts over at Blackisle and Bioware before I abandoned them. Have you tried Genefoge yet?

 

[Volourn]

That's cute. You like his posts yet you quote that. :shock: Hehe.

 

[Jed]

How about a link to that thread?

Yeah really, I just wasted 10 minutes trying to use "search" to find the damn thing. No luck, but I did find a thread about Monks' eyes beginning to glow at lvl 20, which is kind of funny since it's so emblematic of the Bioware approach to quality: at lvl 20, a Monk becomes an Outsider. In NWN, the creature type doesn't actually change (I checked, and at 20 I'm still a human), but you get k3wl gl0wing 3y3z as a compensation. Yay for superficial distractions from missing gameplay elements! Oh well, maybe a fan will write a script to fix it...

 

[Visceris]

http://nwn.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic ... um=77&sp=0

There you go.

Volourn: (tee hee)

 

[Elvenshae]

That's cute. You like his posts yet you quote that. :shock: Hehe.

Well, Volourn said I should come post over here, and that after I did I would be "eaten alive." I look forward to the experience.

The current consensus seems to be that Bioware's efforts in the RPG genre are fairly lacking, especially with regards to multiple, independent paths through a given story.

I challenge anyone here to come up with a list of:

1) Mulitplayer (not necessarilly massively) computer role-playing games that
2) have more than two ways to complete the game.

I specify two because character death followed by the ending of a game is always a possibility.

I believe you'll find the list to be very scant indeed.

Fallout is a deservedly much-lauded title, because it did, in fact, have multiple possible paths through the story. It was, however, a single-player only game.

Another example that has popped up, however, both here and on the Bioware boards, is Troika's upcoming ToEE. While I laud Troika's design goals, there is currently no information to suggest that their multiple beginnings and endings will be anything more complex than a set of different opening and ending cut-scenes. (I.e., the difference between openings in which the party is sent on a quest by the head of a church, the boss of a crime syndicate, or an evil mutli-national alliance is minimal if, after said interlude, the party ends up in the same place with the same goals. The same is true for similarly-made endings.) This, as mentioned with regards to BG II: TOB, would be an unsatisfying state of affairs.

While I hope that ToEE will do a more fully-realized version of multiple paths, whether or not that will happen has yet to be seen.

 

[Jed]

http://nwn.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=246861&forum=77&sp=0 There you go. Volourn: (tee hee)

Oh man, Gaider shut it down before it could get good!

1) Mulitplayer (not necessarilly massively) computer role-playing games that
2) have more than two ways to complete the game.

1) "Multiplayer role-playing game" is a contradiction in terms, if we're speaking of CRPGs--especially so if we're speaking of NWN. There's so many compromises (Gaider's favorite word!) that have to be made to facilitate the multi-player aspect, that in the end there's nothing left to do but kill things. All games of course make compromises, but as we've said here many times, the choice of which compromises to make is what determines the quality of the game.
2) Dying is a pretty spurious way of "completing" the game. That's like saying, "My car has two speeds: Stop and go." There is only one way to complete either of the two OCs; for that matter, I've yet to see a fan made mod that allows multiple ways of completion (if you know of one, let me know). There are no real consequences to any action taken in either OC. That's why NWN is not a RPG so much as it is an "action" (though it fails miserably on this aspect as well) RPG. Diablo with or without a DM. *Yawn* As far as I can tell, this is a limitation of the code. Maybe the fans will find a work around, but most seem content to just have new creatures models and tile sets to play with.

While I laud Troika's design goals, there is currently no information to suggest that their multiple beginnings and endings will be anything more complex than a set of different opening and ending cut-scenes.

Fallout and Arcanum are "proof of concept."

Why do you waste time dialoging with people you've already called "fools"?

 

[Visceris]

First off, who gives a rat's arse about multiplayer. I certainly don't.

 

[Linedog]

That's cute. You like his posts yet you quote that. :shock: Hehe.

Hey you, Mind your own business! :D

 

[Volourn]

Hey, Linedog, as you probably know, Visceris is MY business. :evil:

 

[Linedog]

Hey, Linedog, as you probably know, Visceris is MY business. :evil:

Whatever.

 

[Elvenshae]

1) "Multiplayer role-playing game" is a contradiction in terms, if we're speaking of CRPGs--especially so if we're speaking of NWN.

Hmm. I disagree with you. I find that a roleplaying game can be either:

1) a single-player game with enough built-in flexibility that the computer-run characters seem to be played by actual people, or
2) a multi-player game.

Does this mean that, for instance, Battleship is a roleplaying game? Not inherently, but it can be if it is played in such a fashion. In fact, I've played in a roleplaying game that used a similar mechanic for certain combat resolutions.

In the PnP world, roleplaying games are, almost by definition, multiplayer. Why, then, does it become an inherent contradiction when you insert the word "computer"? What about a multiplayer computer game makes it impossible for it to also be roleplaying?

There's so many compromises (Gaider's favorite word!) that have to be made to facilitate the multi-player aspect, that in the end there's nothing left to do but kill things.

Well, that's a fairly reductionist view of things, and while it is in some respects true, we all can acknowledge that it isn't the whole truth. There is a lot of combat in the NWN and SOU OCs. However, there tends to be a lot of combat in most D&D modules, and there are many places in the SOU OC's first chapter, at least, where a quick tongue will let you avoid combat entirely.

Dying is a pretty spurious way of "completing" the game. That's like saying, "My car has two speeds: Stop and go."

Well, it is a somewhat silly way to "beat" a game, but it is a possibility for completing it. The main character dies at the hands of desert bandits, Vault 13 doesn't get its water chip in time, and its entire population dies. The End. Sarevok slays the Bhaalspawn PC, and presumably goes on to global/planar domination; the PC doesn't know, he's dead. The End. It *is* a possible ending, though not a generally accepted one.

Fallout and Arcanum are "proof of concept."

Both of which were done in a much larger time frame with more people on the job (i.e., more dedicated man-months) and no source material to which the design teams had to stay true.

Moreover, Atari ne Infogrames has a habit of pushing developers to release before the product is truly ready, c.f. MOO3 and NWN. It would not surprise me if Atari's schedule for ToEE precludes a great deal of what Troika would like to do.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see ToEE have all the multiple paths that Fallout did. The module on which it is supposed to be faithfully based, however, is not necessarily given to such non-linear branching.

Why do you waste time dialoging with people you've already called "fools"?

Because I'm a quixotic person and enjoy enlightening discourse.

 

[Araanor]

Both of which were done in a much larger time frame with more people on the job (i.e., more dedicated man-months) and no source material to which the design teams had to stay true.

TOEE is another story. The engine was largely complete when they started production, they aren't bugged down with multi-player or double combat system as in Arcanum and finally the game uses D&D which is balanced for the most part.

 

[Visceris]

Hey, Linedog, as you probably know, Visceris is MY business. :evil:

Um... Volourn... Uh... I don't swing that way. :shock:

 

[Volourn]

Good. Neither do I. Then again, I wasn't talking about that; but the amount of types we post replies to each other. Silly people.

Aaaranor, true, D&D is pretty much balanced for pnp (or so we believe); but it isn't inherently balanced for the computer.

 

[DrattedTin]

For an executive of a public corporation, Gaider sure skips on the tact.

 

[Araanor]

Aaaranor, true, D&D is pretty much balanced for pnp (or so we believe); but it isn't inherently balanced for the computer.

Converting combat with turn-based is pretty straight-forward. There's hardly any conversion to be done, in fact. Have you played the Gold Box games or Dark Sun?

 

[Volourn]

He's not the only one who does so. It wasn't long ago we were alld ebating Sawyer, and Cain's "loss of tact". I say it's all in good fun. At least they communciate with the fans instead of ignoring. Plus, this proves that Mr. Gaider actually reads RPGCodex from time to time.

Aaaranor, yes I have, but still it's not as "straight forward" as you think it is. It's certainly easier than making up a whole new set of rules like Arcanum did; but still not "straight forward"> Then aagin, in the end, Ia gree with your main point, due to the fact that TOEE doesn't have multiplayer or T combat to test and all tha jazz; it gives them more time to mess with the balance of turn base which helps due to the "short" development cycle.